Oregon Measure 114 litigation

[Ura-Ki]

Here's the OFF response to todays decision: https://www.oregonfirearms.org/three-day-safeguard-protected

Don't forget that the legal bills are still coming in.

Gawd, Kevan is so full of Hyperbole it's amazing he doesn't trip over it! That said, at least he has his facts correct this time!

 

[Librarian]

Oregon Supremes have already turned down the opportunity to overturn Judge Raschios' earlier decision. Since the state has neither a permit program nor funding available, I suspect the Brown Clowns will keep their noses out if it until the state actually has something to show for themselves.

That seems correct, but y'never know. Tricky people, those judges.

 

[PiratePast40]

Gawd, Kevan is so full of Hyperbole it's amazing he doesn't trip over it! That said, at least he has his facts correct this time!

The petty and public nit picking will be the death of our rights.

 

[E4mafia]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1611077869152657413

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.170622/gov.uscourts.ord.170622.38.0.pdf

 

[arakboss]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1611077869152657413

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.170622/gov.uscourts.ord.170622.38.0.pdf

I don't agree with this part.

The Court should not enjoin defendants from preparing to issue or
issuing permits, enforcing restrictions on large-capacity magazines, or requiring completed
background checks to transfer firearms.
As described in the Joint Status Report (ECF #61), after the Court issued its initial 30-day
stay based on defendants' December 4 letter, plaintiffs contended that the Court's stay applies
not only to enforcement of the permitting requirement, but also to Measure 114's provisions
requiring background checks to transfer a firearm. See, e.g., Measure 114 §§ 6(3)(c), 7(3)(d)(B),
8(3)(c). Plaintiffs are incorrect. The Court expressly based its stay order on defendants'
agreement for a limited stay as stated in their December 4 letter: "Because Defendants have
asked this Court to postpone implementation of Measure 114's permit requirement, ECF 13
[defendants' letter], this Court stays implementation of those requirements for 30 days[.]" (Case
No. 3:22-cv-1869, ECF #17 at 2.) Defendants were unambiguous in their December 4 letter that
"there is no basis to enjoin Measure 114's . . . various provisions requiring completed
background checks when firearms are purchased." (ECF #34 at 2.) As such, this Court has not
stayed enforcement of the background check requirements.
Furthermore, there is no basis to broaden the stay to include those provisions now. As
explained in the Joint Status Report, Measure 114's provisions requiring permits and provisions
requiring background checks at the time of purchase are conceptually distinct; the Measure could
require either without the other and the fact that it requires both does not make them "part of
parcel" of a single program. (ECF #61 at 5-8.) In addition, plaintiffs have asserted no claims in
their original complaints and motions for preliminary relief that the background check provisions
are, standing alone, unconstitutional; and, in any event, they are constitutional. (Id.)

 

[Librarian]

Earlier there was a question on how a court should determine whether or not to issue a preliminary injunction.

Today's SAF/FPC filing in Fitz describes the Winter test:

A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish
that he is likely to succeed on the merits,
that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,
that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and
that an injunction is in the public interest.
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).

A plaintiff must "make a showing on all four prongs" of the Winter test, but a court may employ a "sliding scale" approach in weighing the four factors. All. For the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011).

Two other filings today - Eyre (Paul Clement) and Azzopardi.

 

[oregunbob541]

ChatGPT explaining the meaning of "Shall not be infringed":

"Shall not be infringed" is a phrase that appears in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. The phrase means that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be violated or impaired in any way.
The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This amendment has been the subject of significant debate and legal controversy, with some interpreting it as protecting an individual's right to own and carry firearms for any lawful purpose, and others interpreting it as protecting the right of states to maintain a militia.
The phrase "shall not be infringed" is used to express the idea that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental and inviolable right that should not be restricted or impaired in any way. It is intended to ensure that the right to own and carry firearms is protected from any attempts to infringe upon it, whether by government action or any other means.

 

[PiratePast40]

The latest from OFF: https://www.oregonfirearms.org/a-storm-is-brewing

A Storm Is Brewing

01.09.2023
Today Tina Kotek was sworn in as Oregon's Governor.
Kotek is a radical, anti-gun extremist, as was her predecessor. But Kotek is well known for being far more vindictive and willing to crush anyone who stands in her way.
You can ask any of the Democrat House Reps who have felt her wrath.
She has already begun touring the state, but much like Joe Biden, she carefully avoids contact with those who don't march in lockstep with her agenda. Just ask the Yamhill County Commissioners who were pointedly not invited to meet with Kotek when she visited there recently.
Kotek was a vocal cheerleader for Measure 114 while running for office and you can bet that forcing that unconstitutional scheme down our throats will be job one, well ahead of anything she is promising.
A newsletter from anti-rights Senator Floyd Prozanski today announced that implementation of 114 is one of his priorities as well. And the State has already advised that it will be seeking to appeal the hold on 114 that is in place at the moment as a result of the actions of a Judge in Harney County.
Numerous anti-gun bills are already drafted and ready to move through the system. You can view all the bills currently available at this link Oregon Legislative Information System (oregonlegislature.gov)
In the upper right hand corner you can click on "Bills" and enter the search term of your choice. Try "firearms" and "handgun."
There are a number of "pro-gun" bills there that have been introduced by Republicans that have essentially zero chance of passing. However since they have the relating clause "Relating to Firearms" the Democrats can give them hearings, and then take no action on them but later "gut and stuff" them with anti-gun language. A procedure you would think the sponsors would have given some thought to. But… they did not. One more gift elected Republicans handed to the gun grabbers.
There are bills to further restrict CHL's and at least two bills to ban possession of home made firearms or parts that may one day become firearms. There are no exceptions for firearms you have already lawfully constructed. The second bill can be viewed here.
There is a bill that clearly was intended to intimidate protesting gun owners but could be used against antifa rioters if they were ever arrested and prosecuted. (We know….)
We are just getting started so expect plenty more bad news.
The Republicans no longer have the option of walking out to protect your rights. Under the failed "leadership" of Christine Drazan and Fred Girod they refused to even consider that, claiming if they did, there could be a ballot measure to forbid walk outs. And as we know, there was anyway. And the Republicans did not bother to post one single argument against that very dangerous measure. So now, in the unlikely event they ever had real leadership, that tool is no longer available.
They do have the power to block the tax increases that the Democrats will be presenting. So in theory they have a bargaining chip. Will they use it? That is extremely doubtful.
The Legislature convenes on January 17th. Gun owners will not only have to battle these attacks in court (Measure 114) but also in Salem. It's going to be a rocky ride.
On a somewhat positive note, we are slowly catching up here. Today we were able to ship out the next batch of hats and patches that were overdue to new members. That entire supply was gone in a flash and the next batch will go out the minute we get them. We have to send a huge shout out and thank you to our friends at Fishead Custom Printing who did an amazing job rushing through the last batch of really nicely done hats. We appreciate their support.
The gun grabbers are losing in court after court. But they have the ability to keep ramming through unconstitutional bills knowing it costs them nothing.
We are in unsettled time for gun owners. We thank you for you continued support. Buckle up. A storm is brewing.
Categories: OFF Alerts, Uncategorized

Post navigation

Previous post:THREE DAY SAFEGUARD PROTECTED

 

[mingus]

Was checking Oregon State Shooting Association at https://www.ossa.org/bm114.html and don't think I've seen this mentioned:

January 5: Federal Judge Immergut, in a follow-up to the Dec. 6, 2022 hearing, has granted the States request to lift the Stay on the requirement for a unique identifier of an approved background check (removing the 3-day rule) and the magazine ban portions of BM114. See the order here.
This means that Harney Judge Raschio's decision is now the only order keeping the entirety of BM114 under a restraining order at this time. The State is expected to challenge this with the Oregon Supreme Court by January 15th. Meanwhile the cases will continue to address the constitutionality of BM114 as a whole.

 

[Yarome]

Was checking Oregon State Shooting Association at https://www.ossa.org/bm114.html and don't think I've seen this mentioned:

You musta missed the 37 other 114 threads, hu.

Everything is stayed at the moment under Oregon law. Immergoober can go fleck off. The state may attempt another petition to the appearls courts, but we'll see how that goes. Their first attempt was dismissed without prejudice so it's an option.

 

[arakboss]

Was checking Oregon State Shooting Association at https://www.ossa.org/bm114.html and don't think I've seen this mentioned:

January 5: Federal Judge Immergut, in a follow-up to the Dec. 6, 2022 hearing, has granted the States request to lift the Stay on the requirement for a unique identifier of an approved background check (removing the 3-day rule) and the magazine ban portions of BM114. See the order here.
This means that Harney Judge Raschio's decision is now the only order keeping the entirety of BM114 under a restraining order at this time. The State is expected to challenge this with the Oregon Supreme Court by January 15th. Meanwhile the cases will continue to address the constitutionality of BM114 as a whole.

Doh! Nevermind.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

After Senator Floyd Prozanski gets through with BM114, home defense will become a two step process

 

[nammac]

Every great society throughout time has experienced a decline before it ceased to exist…

AmeriKa is in that decline….

 

[Camelfilter]

Every great society throughout time has experienced a decline before it ceased to exist…

AmeriKa is in that decline….

Average true timeframe of great societies runs approximately 250-300 years. Least ways those known throughout written history.

Edit, adding: according to John Gabot Glubb, "the Fate of Empires". A quick inciteful 26 page read. Can be found downloadable on the interwebs.

 

[arakboss]

Average true timeframe of great societies runs approximately 250-300 years. Least ways those known throughout written history.

Is England an outlier?

 

[Camelfilter]

Is England an outlier?

Nope! -From once a great empire/society, to what is now a small country.

If you have a chance give the essay a read. Answers your question specifically, plus very worthwhile regardless.

Its 26 pages, a worthwhile & quick read.

 

[E4mafia]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1613350598291636228

 

[Dust2Dollars]

 

[tkdguy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1613350598291636228

Oh! This is funny because prior to 114 myself; I tried my best to contact the black
American gun groups, the LGBTQ and other minority groups and I was simply rejected. I approached them with flyers and atttempted to get their assistance to campaign agaist 114 and was rejected. Some of my team posted flyers in business areas frequented by these groups, and several business in an attempt to have the flyers distributed by these special groups; the flyers were tailored special to their import non-discrimination issues, and myself and my team were rejected. In one or more instances, I had conversation with several group leaders in an effort to gather their assistance and was rejected.

 

[3MTA3]

Oh! This is funny because prior to 114 myself; I tried my best to contact the black
American gun groups, the LGBTQ and other minority groups and I was simply rejected. I approached them with flyers and atttempted to get their assistance to campaign agaist 114 and was rejected. Some of my team posted flyers in business areas frequented by these groups, and several business in an attempt to have the flyers distributed by these special groups; the flyers were tailored special to their import non-discrimination issues, and myself and my team were rejected. In one or more instances, I had conversation with several group leaders in an effort to gather their assistance and was rejected.

Prejudice is a two way street. They see most of us as stereotypes of their own imagination while they accuse us of the same.